Hi,

Two questions:

1. What is "IRC" and do we have permission to use whatever that is in OSM?

2. Is the name of these roads really "Needs A Name Road"?

Thanks.

Meh. It's OSM, so there's two ways of tagging something. I had just been using both because it's not that much more effort. I would have most likely just fixed it when I get round to checking CAPAD.

Thanks for letting me know.

Keep reading. "Note: this tag is by no means an access restriction (indicating that passing is not allowed). It must be ignored by routing (GPS)."

As you have already pointed out this goes into someone's private building. As far as I know mapping the internal layout of people's houses is frowned upon, which means we'll never be able to connect this to the rest of the OSM routable network.

No. The IUCN categories are a statement of intent from the owner of the reserve. This reserve does not have a published IUCN category.

That's not what the noexit tag indicates. It's a flag to a validator to stop telling me it's a problem.

Where does it go?

Is there a reason you disconnected way/980809661 from Dalton Drive? It seems unlikely that a shopping centre would not have a way for customers to drive into and out of their car park.

OSM is a volunteer based mapping project. Unless someone is interested enough in checking OSM against MWRA, then it's not going to be automatically ingested.

I think it's this changeset: changeset/165826344

I think the main problem is that none of these regions are verifiable. Ironically the Sutherland Shire is the only one that is, because it's an LGA--and is already mapped.

It looks like you added the abandoned tags. Are they abandoned or not?

They were tagged abandoned=yes If that's not correct you should remove them.

Your conditional tagging is not valid. As I have already tried to explain either: 1. Delete the conditional and have oneway=no or keep the conditional and have oneway=yes. If you are having trouble understanding conditionals I would suggest reading osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

changeset/165959856

You can also represent it using a turn restriction relation/19100096

The oneway:conditional cannot be the same as the default value in the oneway tag. Either set the oneway to no and delete the oneway:conditional or the oneway needs to be yes.

changeset/165934585

This is the issue that needs to be fixed https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T326560

I don't know. You'd left the northern end of the cycleway dangling in space. All I did was hook it up to the existing cycleway. I assume that they have not demolished the pram ramp, so you should be able to ride onto the existing cycleway.

This is not a boundary. We do not tag things in OSM so that they will appear in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia cannot cope with a collection relation then that is a problem with Wikipedia. If you want to tag this as a boundary then open a topic in the US category on the OSM Community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 and make your case.

changeset/165401791

I have no memory of this one in particular. I do remember removing the ones that did not have a physical address on their website / socials. Maybe they didn't have one six years ago.

Might want to ask Lockstar changeset/163318270 As far as I remember they were replacing this with closed ways. Maybe they didn't finish.